Attorney Guide Dividing Military Reserve Retirement Pay

© 2015 Brian Mork, Ph.D. [Rev 1.7]

HomeSite IndexWikiBlog rss-feed



It is beneficial to pursue equity dividing marital assets.  When dividing the marriage asset of military retirement pay, the issues are different than any other type of retirement. This web page describes military Reserve (or National Guard) specific issues.  If your concerns are more general in nature, see other web pages describing Dual Coverture , Promotion Enhancement, or Dual Coverture Value calculations. An example division is shown using the DCV Method.

If you are a legal client going through a divorce, download "Attorney Instructions - Division of Reserve and Active Duty Military Retirement" from the references below and make it available to your lawyer and your court.  The idea is that you want to get this information in front of your judge - first to help him/her understand something that they have no experience with, and secondly, you want the facts and explanations in the court records in case of an appeal.

If you are an attorney, then this web page, it's sister pages referenced above, and the reference links at the bottom of all pages, are a gold mine.  Forget the confusion; these pages explain what you need to know, with proper legal and citation "hooks" to customize the information for your case.  You will find that if a court is familar with military retirements, it is probably limited to Active Duty Retirement.  Beyond that, a court must understand Reserve Retirements.  Beyond that, a court must understand Reserve Early Retirement. These are significant steps.


Discussions about military retirement typically center around the the amount of military payments to be received each month by the non-military ex-spouse, and if there is possibility for future military promotions after the divorce, you should read about how to properly do calculations when there are promotion enhancements after divorce.  The salient point on this web page is that a military retirement asset is the multiplication of the amount each month multiplied by which months payment is received.  Up until 2008, this distinction has not mattered because all military payments were comingled together, portioned out with coverture fractions.

As of January 2008, a new Federal Law offers retention bonuses to military Reservists, in the form of an additional and distinct retirement. For a Reserve military retirement, there are now 2 quantifiable different military retirements that have to be individually assessed to be a marital asset or not.  The two retirements do not comingle in any way, and the new retirement does not modify or affect the traditional retirement in any way.  Retirement pay earned after a Reserve military member turns 60 is the traditional retirement that courts may be familiar with.  For a Reservist, the new 2008 law authorizes retirement payments before age 60.  Specifically, for 90 additional days of duty done after January 28, 2008, 3 additional monthly retirement checks are earned.  These additional checks can be earned only by active participation after January 28, 2008.  In the simplest case, if the marriage ended before January 28, 2008, the before-age-60 payments are not a marital asset because they are earned outside the marriage.

The default position of DFAS is to divide any and all retirement checks.  A division order must specifically address a Reserve early retirement, or DFAS assumes it is to be divided the same.  Silence on the part of division orders creates inequity against the class of Reserve retirees who did duty both before and after the date of the new law.  A Depart of Defense Congressional report says it clearly in a way consistent with every state law:

"[Giving ex-spouse a portion of post-marriage benefit] of military retired pay is inconsistent with the treatment of other marital assets in divorce proceedings—only those assets that exist at the time of divorce or separation are subject to division. Assets that are [actively] earned after a divorce are the sole property of the party who earned them."

The State of Michigan Appellate court also ruled that retention bonuses earned after the divorce belong only to earner of the bonuses.

The new Federal law has big implications on how the military retirement division order should be written if any portion of the marriage or any portion of military duty spans across January 28, 2008.


Regardless of when a military Reserve member enters retired status, 10 USC 12371(a) authorizes retirement payments only at and after military member age 60.  However, as of January 2008, 10 USC 12731 authorizes a Reservist to receive additional payments before age 60 by working duty days after January 28th, 2008.  An Air Force news release explains this new law.  Title 10 USC Section 12731(f), describes this new, separate, and distinct, marital asset to be divided.

With the prior traditional Retirement military retirement, there is a commingling of effect of marriage duty years such that years are treated equally and prorated for division based on a count of how many military years were also married years—this is the “coverture fraction” allowed by the USFSPA after the U.S. Supreme Court originally ruled that military retirements were not divisible.  Comingled means that a date of duty could be moved to any other period of the marriage and the total retirement value does not change.  This is not true when moving a date across the 28 January 2008 boundary, and therefore demonstrates that the two retirements are not combinable or comingleable.

It’s important to note 10 USC 12731(f)(2)(A) clearly and quantifiably defines the receipt of retirement pay before age 60 dependent if and only if military duty was done January 28th, 2008 and after. Because of the hard date in the sand, there is no commingling, and USFSPA does not authorize "reaching across" this date and combining retirements.  The new retirement benefit is properly divided as a separate asset. Points earned before January 28, 2008 create coverture fractions for payments after age 60. Points earned after Janaury 28, 2008 create coverture fractions for before age 60 payments.  If a marriage ends before January 28th, the numerator of the coverture fraction would be zero for before age 60 retirement.

In summary, Reserve retirement consists of two separate and distinct, and not comingled retirements, which may require two coverture fractions if one of them is not zero.
  1. Retirement earned after 1/28/08 --> retirement payments before military member age 60.
  2. Retirement earned before 1/28/08 ---> retirement payments after military member age 60.

Argument For and Against

One could argue in a Talmudic way that the military member is re-using shared marital points to calculatethe before-age-60 benefit, or that additional benefit is "based on" the marital portion of the benefit, and therefore the ex-spouse should “get a cut” of the benefit. This argument lacks viability in the face of a division order that awards division of military retirement benefit "accrued during the marriage" or "earned during the marriage".  The legally undefined and vague concept of "based on" logic is often introduced to invade the other retirement value.  However, this logic is faulty because it would lead to absurd and inequitable ramifications if applied to each spouse equally (see numbered points below).  In fact, most state laws explicity say ex-spouse payments are to "based on" assets earned during marriage.  A correct litmus test regarding the division of retirement should ensure ex-spouse payments do not go up or down in value based on anything either party does after the divorce. If this is not true with your proposal, it should be corrected.

Parlaying points whose value at the time of divorce is shared, into higher value is a legitimate military member solo effort, and does not invoke divisibility of the higher value enhancement.  Points are worth nothing; it is the use of the points that creates value.  Here are multiple reasons why the separate and non-comingled asset value in the form of early retirement payments must not automatically be lumped in with the traditional retirement:
  1. Allowing benefits earned and accrued after the marriage to be classified as a marital asset because they are based on or calculated from marital property is untenable because the idea would a) need to be applied with symmetry to both spouses, and b) never allow lives to separate, dishonoring the very definition of divorce.  Examples:

  2. The additional value of retirement points (payments before age 60) earned by the military member after the marriage in no way decreases the prior value to the ex-spouse and therefore should not be encumbered. 5 USC 8332(c)(4) is an example of how ex-spouse interests are already protected by Federal Law:  if the point value were decreased (it is not), then the ex-spouse may invade the additional or dual-use value.  However, Federal law limits how much the additional value can be invaded to the extent required to make their original point value whole.  In the case of before-age-60 benefit, the point value retained by the ex-spouse is NOT decreased, so invasion of the new benefit is not appropriate.  Even if invasion of pre-age 60 paymetns were appropriate, Federal law requires that it should be restored to only the original value, which means potentionally unlimited additional value is NOT to be divided. This statute demonstrates the Federal intent that enhanced point value actively earned after the marriage belongs entirely to the military member doing the work except in the case where it decreases ex-spouse payments, and then it is to be shared only to the extent that restores original value.  Reserve Early retirement never affects the original, and is therefore not to be invaded or encumbered.

  3. The ex-spouse contributes no partnership to the early payments, and therefore should expect nothing from the early payments. Because the ex-spouse contributes nothing after the marriage, that is how they should expect their payment to change: the ex-spouse value should be blind to any increases the ex-spouse is not part of.  There is one exception, where both parties are trapped by Federal law. Although the retirement asset would be ideally divided at the time of divorce (like a 401(k) or IRA), the Federal government forces both parties to wait for disbursement until after the military member retires.  Because both parties have to wait for distribution of the asset until some future time after the divorce, they are both compensated for the "time-value of money" or "cost of living adjustments" via passive annual increases of the military pay chart, to which retirement payments are indexed. Note that passive increases may be divisible, but earned active increases such as early retirement payments are not. The DCV method of division is the simplest and most lucid way to do this.

  4. Once the early retirement benefit is earned or authorized, exactly how it is calculated is a private benefit or entitlement matter between the military member and employer.  Additional value or dual-use value of each retirement point is added solely by the work of one person after the marriage.  Therefore, the added benefit associated with the added value belongs to only that person contributing to that value. By way of anology, some military members receive a retention bonus after the marriage by signing a contract after the marriage to staying in the military for an additional number of years.  In these cases, the ex-spouse would gain no portion of that bonus, even though the military member was eligible for the bonus only because of longevity including military years done during the marriage.  The new retirement is a financial retention motivation tool, obtained via a performance contract after the marriage that does not include the ex-spouse.

  5. The enhanced value of the aggregate retirement asset is created by earning more pay dates, not changing how much is paid on each pay date.  Prior USFSPA law and case precedence is about determining how much is paid to whom on each date.  According to Federal statute, the enhanced value given by the new law is quantifiable separate and distinct retirement benefit.  The ex-spouse contributed nothing toward the extra days, which create additional pay dates, not additional pay amount. Retirement payments before military member age 60 are not marital assets, so dividing them under UFSPA is inappropriate.  In the case of a marriage that ended before January 28, 2008, a court order should simply state that payments before military member age 60 are not to be divided.  When marriage and military duty span January 28, 2008, the court order should simply state two percentages or fractions.  One is applicable for payments before age 60 and one is applicable for payments after age 60.  If there is no overlap, the court order can simply state "payments before military member age 60 are not to be divided."  Alternately, because of DFAS bureacratic limitations, many division orders direct "overpayments" to one person or the other be returned to the rightful owner.  In a similar way, the court order may simply state payments before age 60 be returned to the rightful owner.

  6. Consider a chronologically opposite case where the military person worked solo military for years before marriage.  Courts do not recognize that ex-spouse portion is "based on" or "because of" prior solo military duty and therefore they should get less than half of the marital years.  If solo military duty before marriage does not reach into the future to reduce the division of marriage years because of a "based on" relationship, then marriage years should not reach into the future and increase the division of post-marriage years because of a "based on" relationship.   The problem is that using vague "based on" arguments is kind of like saying a person's 50th year of life is based on the fact that they completed the 40th year of life.  This logic is not allowed in the court because then the entire rest of a person's life would be divisible as marriage asset. There is no place for intentionally vague and legally undefined "based on" or "because of" language in court proceedings.

  7. The number of days retirement is received early (before member age 60) is proportional to the amount duty days after the law.  For example, twice as many days after the law earns twice as many days of retirements before age 60.  The early retirement value is not proportional to the number of duty days before the new law, mathematically showing that only duty after the law is important.

  8. The extra retirement pay dates requires no prior rank, no prior seniority, no prior duty. It is a totally separate program. It is quantifiable separable and independent, authorized by separate dates of duty, authorized by a new paragraph in the Federal statute.  Simply because the separate benefit is also colloquially called “military retirement”, courts often confuse the issue.  However, if courts do not take the time to understand and separately allocate this retirement benefit, their error is as egreggious as if they lumped all “IRAs” or all “401(k)s” or all “pensions” together just because they have the same name.  It is unconsciousable and exhibits judicial malpractice to say that a 401(k) or IRA started after the marriage should be divided simply because it's called the same name!

Questions and Answers

Q: Aren't before age 60 payments based on points earned while married?
A: No. The U.S. Supreme Court disallowed division of military retirement that required additional solo work contribution by the military member after divorce. Subsequent USFSPA law allowed for division of military retirement because of co-mingling of duty dates. However, there is no co-mingling of duty dates for the distinctly separate early retirement payments. The before age-60 payments are a distinct and separate different retirement value enacted by Federal law after USFSPA. Early retirement is a distinctly different marital asset and must be divided some, all, or none, depending on marital and military activities after January 2008.

Q: Aren't the age 60 payments made higher based on commingled points?
A: No. I think you mean "calculated from" instead of "based on". Just like some DFAS divisions are calculated from Federal COLA numbers, before age 60 payments are calculated from solo duty points and dual duty points, plus other critical numbers. Points are not owned by anybody and lawful division is based on *earning* points not *calculating* with points. The before age 60 payments are calculated using duty details after January 2008. No matter how many total marriage points are earned, the before age 60 payments are zero unless marriage duty is done after January 2008. The ex-spouse is compensated for contribution during marriage because commingled points earn the spouse a higher percentage of monthly payments from the traditional age 60 retirement addressed by USFSPA.

Q: But if the divided points were absent in the calculation, wouldn't the before age 60 payments be less? 
A: If commingled marriage points were absent, then ALL payments (before and after age 60, and for both parties) would be less. This is nothing unique to payments before age 60. Ex-spouse payments are based on assets earned during marriage, and these payments are preserved and do not go up or down in value based on whether or not there are before age 60 payments. Points are not owned. The opportunity to USE those points is earned. Using points for age 60 benefit is one thing. Using points for payment prior to age 60 is a separate and distinct thing.

Based On

The phrase "based on" and "but for" are legally undefined phrases, which cause great confusion when used with military retirements. "Based on", "but for", and "provided a basis for" concepts are specifically critiqued in the Sullivan rebuttal available in the references section below. It's important to distinguish two issues.  One is a potential debate about how a marital asset is divided.  The more important issue is whether something is a marital asset in the first place.  If an enhanced promotion benefit was "earned" or "accrued" without spousal contribution after the divorce, it is not a marital asset no matter what it is "based on" or how it is calculated.

The phrase "based on" is legally vague and obscures good judgment.   Any use of this word in military retirement divorce proceedings really means one of only two things:

1) "Based on" could mean "Accrued during".  Example: "The retirement payment increased based on additional duty done during the marriage."  In this case UFSPA law directs that retirement can be divided because there is a comingling of dates (switching dates does not affect the calculation).  Switching dates across January 28, 2008 does affect retirement value and is therefore early retirement payments are demonstrably not commingled.

2) "Based on" could mean, "Derived from" or "Calculated from".   Example, "Ex-spouse wrote a book based on being married to the other person."   Book earnings are not divided even though it taps into and uses time of marriage.  Example, "DFAS Hypothetical division method is based on Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA)."  Nothing about COLA is shared or divided just because it's in the calculation.

These two meanings create HUGE differences when dividing military benefit.  It's to the military member's benefit to be clear.  It's to the ex-spouse's benefit to be vague because without distinction, more of #2 situations can be drawn into #1. In either case, to ~intentionally~ be vague dishonors the entire intent of our Nation's legal system.

Proximate of Events cause Division

The January 2008 early retirement law allows Reserve military members to increase value of retirement by earning earlier additional payments, not more payment each month.  The extra value is in how MANY payments are made, not how MUCH each payment is.  The additional payments are accrued to the military member only by work of the military member after January 2008.   The additional payments are identical to the later ones, and hence, they are "based on" as in "calculated from" the same point values.  It is important to note that "calculated from" is not sufficient to cause asset division. For example, the amount of any military retirement division is "based on" or "calculated using" the full length of the military member's career, but that does not mean the full career is divided.  Additionally, one of the DFAS division methods is "based on" or "calculated using" national COLA, which neither spouse contributed to.

Another way of thinking about this issue is to consider the proximate cause of early retirement value increase.  When the points were earned during a marriage, both parties participated.  Latent value doesn't exist and has no value until the military member finishes a career without the marriage partnership and actually applies for retirement.  The Supreme Court ruled that latent military retirement cannot be divided.  However, in the specific and narrow case of military members with comingled duty dates, UFSPA legislation undid the applicability to military retirements by allowing that courts may (not must) divide latent value if it is specifically a military retirement.  However, at least in Michigan, one could argue that civilian latent benefits remain non-divisible per the 2009 Skelly v. Skelly Appellate course reversal mentioned above, which dealt with a latent civilian retention bonus that was ordered not divisible.

The time sequence of events causing divisibility of military latent benefits in the eyes of UFSPA is:

First, laws since the early 20th century define how much monthly retirement payment is made
Then, retirement points are accrued during a marriage, followed by divorce
Then, latent retirement payments are vested or converted into earned retirement
Because the marriage accrual of value in the 2nd step is proximate to the developed retirement in the 3rd step, developed value becomes divisible.

However, with early retirement payments, the proximate relationship is reversed:

First, retirement points are accrued during a marriage, followed by divorce
Then, new laws in Jan 2008 create additional payments but do not change the amount of payments
Then, additional military retirement points are earned that make the payment per month go up, plus additional duty points (alone) create additional payment months.
The marriage accrual of value is NOT proximate to the developed retirement - rather the new law in the 2nd step is proximate to the developed value in the 3rd step - so developed value is not divisible.  Latency did not exist during the marriage.

In the first case, the law and the earning of credit span *across* the marriage.  In the second case, the marriage was terminated and THEN a new law was created and a benefit was earned under the new law.  The marriage is NOT proximate to earning the benefit and therefore the benefit is not divisible.  It is very rare that new laws reach retroactively and change history.  For example, UFSPA did not attempt to do this.  In a similar way the January 2008 should not reach retroactively into the marriage.  Graphically,

When in this order: Law - Marriage - Accrual ---> Division
When in this order: Marriage - Law - Accrual ---> No Division

If there is any doubt to this conclusion, consider contract law as an analogy.  If the marriage is inserted into the "retirement contract" between the Federal government to a military member, then the ex-spouse shares in that contract.  However, the early retirement law is a new "retirement contract" meant to motivate future duty of Reservists - causing them to do more duty for early retirement pay.  The new contract comes into existence only after the marriage is history.  The new contract does not change or damage or modify the divisible retirement in any way, and so the ex-spouse has no third-party interest or claim into the additional value, regardless of how it is calculated.

In summary, although early retirement monthly amount is calculated using the same methods to yield a fraction or percentage, the calculation process is not relevant to determine divisibility.  Early retirement payments earned and accrued outside of a marriage are not divisible.

Practical Legal Implementation

In the case of a marriage that ended before January 28, 2008, a court order should simply state that payments before military member age 60 are not to be divided.  For those members who were married and did military duty before 1/28/08 and have earned or may in the future earn this retirement enhancement by earning points after 1/28/08, a decision must be made as to whether payments before age 60 are a divisible asset or an un-divisible asset.  The answer to this question would depend on the period of marriage, divided into 3 possibilities:

1.    If the marriage was entirely before 1/28/08, then the before age-60 retirement payments were earned only after the marriage, so the benefit would be retained 100% by the military member.  The traditional formula for the division is fine (use the Dual Coverture or Hypothetical Method or DCV method as described elsewhere).  However, the division order must specify that no division occurs until member age-60.  Caution: If the division order is silent on this issue, all retirement payments will be incorrectly divided by DFAS, so the order must state that payment division will begin only upon the military member reaching age 60.  If DFAS will not change their payment destinations at age 60, then the division order must state that the ex-spouse return payments to the military member each month.

2.    If the marriage was entirely after 1/28/08, then the before age-60 monthly payments are divided same as after age-60 monthly payments.  Correct division will occur by not mentioning this issue at all in the order (DFAS will divide all payments the same).

3.    If the marriage spans 1/28/08, before age-60 monthly payments need to be prorated with a different coverture fraction than done with the age-60 and after payments. The numbers for the coverture fractions for the two retirements will be different, so two formula paragraphs must be written for DFAS to use.  The formula paragraphs should reflect dual coverture fractions (DCV) to include corrections for possible future military rank promotions.  If there was no military duty before marriage, two paragraphs (to be used together, each creating one percentage) from the Hypothetical method can be used if the court or opposing counsel insists, or DCV can be used.  The exact text for Hypothetical changes based on different situations; that's part of why DCV is better!  The example below is quoted from Example 4 in the 2010 and 2012 editions of the Attorney Instructions published by DFAS.

If there was military duty before the marriage, two paragraphs from the DCV method must be used for equitable division because the Hypothetical Method does not handle the situation correctly.

The Dual Coverture method was considered and sanctioned by a New Jersey Appellate Court in January 2011, and advocated by the DoD report to Congress, and later Oklahoma law.  The non-military spouse payment is the same as provided by the DFAS-published Hypothetical Method in their “Instructions to Attorneys” document, while being much simpler to calculate, except differences of how "time value of money" is calculated (national COLA vs. pay chart raises).  If there were military duty before marriage, Dual Coverture Value methods would have to be used because no other method accommodates this case.

Note the New Jersey Court made a huge factual error, spending 2 pages of their opinion incorrectly claiming dual coverture methods deprive COLA to the non-military member.  With the above formula paragraphs, there is no requirement to mention COLA for either person in order to get COLA for both.  The two above paragraphs create fractions, and because these fractions will be applied to charted base pay values that go up each year, COLA automatically happens for both people as the base retirement pay goes up each year.


To pursue equity, family law courts must recognize the new Reserve "early" military retirement as a separate and distinct entity.  It may or may not be a divisible marriage asset.  If this issue is not addressed in the original division order, every Reserve military member who earns a "before age 60 benefit" (possibly long after the divorce) will be back in court asking the court to address this issue in compliance with the original intent of the division order.  This is consistent with DoD's report to congress which says:

"[Giving ex-spouse a portion of post-marriage benefit] of military retired pay is inconsistent with the treatment of other marital assets in divorce proceedings—only those assets that exist at the time of divorce or separation are subject to division. Assets that are [actively] earned after a divorce are the sole property of the party who earned them."


  1. "Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA) Attorney Instructions - Dividing Military Retired Pay". April 2001. (, increa copy) (19 pgs, 74kb pdf).
  2. ""Guidance on Dividing Military Retired Pay". Updated version of DFAS attorney instructions.  2 April 2012(, increa copy).
  3. DoD Report to Committee on Armed Services of the US Senate and House of Representatives, 1998. (, increa copy) (84 pgs, 279kb pdf)
  4. Attorney Instructions - Division of Reserve and Active Duty Military Retirement (increa copy).
  5. Division of Blog post Dual Coverture is better than DFAS Hypothetical Method, February 2011
  6. "Reservists may qualify for early retired pay," news release (increa copy), 24 Feb 2009.

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional

This article originally appeared on the blog.  The shell of this expanded document was created using AbiWord under the Linux Gnome desktop. Content was edited using Kompozer. (c) 2015 by Brian Mork.